Local approaches to Armed Forces Covenant delivery and wider support for the Armed Forces Community

Photo by Sgt Jimmy Wise/UK MoD

Background

What is the Armed Forces Covenant?

The Covenant is a pledge acknowledging that the Armed Forces Community should not face disadvantage compared to the wider population in the provision of public and commercial services. In certain cases, special consideration may also be awarded to ‘those who have given the most’ among members of this group.

What was the purpose of this research?

• The ‘Our Community, Our Covenant’ (OCOC) research series has been commissioned by the Forces in Mind Trust to examine the Covenant’s delivery and how it could be improved.
• In this study, Our Community, Our Covenant and beyond, we examined different local, regional, and subregional models that have been adopted by local authorities and their partners to deliver the Covenant across England, Scotland, and Wales.
• To provide a richer understanding of Covenant delivery and identify good practice, we conducted case study research in five local authority areas: 1) Cardiff and the Vale of Glamorgan, 2) the East Riding of Yorkshire, 3) Glasgow, 4) Greater Manchester, and 5) Oxfordshire.

This brief provides an overview of how the Covenant and wider support to the Armed Forces Community are delivered in England, Scotland, and Wales, including the ways that local approaches and models of delivery can vary, and key considerations for facilitating progress in reducing disadvantage.^[1]

Core Infrastructure for Covenant Delivery

Local authorities play a leading role in Covenant delivery through direct service provision as well as their ability to draw together key local, regional and national stakeholders.

Previous research has identified a ‘core infrastructure’ for effective Covenant delivery that consists of four components which provide the building blocks for local support to the Armed Forces Community:

• Individuals
  • An elected member Champion
  • An officer point of contact
• Collaboration
  • An outward-facing forum
  • A mechanism for collaboration with partners
• Communication
  • A web page with key information and links
  • A clear public statement of expectations
  • A route for raising issues or concerns
  • Training of frontline staff
  • Production of an annual report with key actions
• Vision and commitment
  • An action plan that is monitored and reviewed
  • Regular policy reviews
  • Enthusiasm and commitment

Partnership working in Covenant delivery

Covenant delivery is inherently collaborative and involves a range of local and national partners. These include:

• Third and private sector actors
• Other public service providers (e.g. integrated care or health boards, emergency services)
• Higher education and research institutions
• National government departments and offices.

The nature and extent of partnership working varies significantly. Some local authority areas have prioritised a collaborative approach to implementing the Covenant while others rely on more informal or ad hoc engagement with partner organisations.

It is essential that local authorities use their convening power effectively to draw together delivery partners, share expertise, and promote the efficient use of resources in support of Covenant delivery. Similarly, all organisations involved in delivery of the Covenant along with wider support for the Armed Forces Community should actively and constructively engage in partnership working.

The Role of Local and National Partners

Our research identified a range of roles that local and national partners can fill to help deliver the Covenant and wider services for the Armed Forces Community.

The provision of this support may be coordinated through formal partnerships and collaboration networks, as well as direct engagement.

This diagram illustrates the role of local and national partners in Covenant delivery. A central dark box containing the text "The role of local and national partners in Covenant delivery" is connected by bidirectional arrows to six surrounding boxes, each representing a different partnership role.

Partnership Roles

Top Row (left to right):

• Specialist service provision
• Education, expertise & data sharing
• Gatekeeping & partnership coordination

Bottom Row (left to right):

• Funding provision
• Advocacy & awareness training
• Reinforcing accountability

Factors Shaping Covenant Delivery

It is clear that a ‘one size fits all’ approach is not suitable for Covenant delivery.

There are several contextual factors that shape how Covenant pledges and wider support for the Armed Forces Community are best delivered at a local, regional or national level. These include:

• Local authority structure (e.g. single-tier/ unitary, two-tier, combined/county-combined)
• Geography (e.g. rural, urban)
• Armed Forces Community profile
• Structure and composition of the support landscape
• Capacity, capabilities and priorities of service providers

Good Practice in Covenant Delivery

Our case study research identified numerous structures and mechanisms that can support effective Covenant delivery. However, Covenant delivery is highly context-specific. As such, efforts to adopt or replicate these mechanisms should consider local requirements and priorities, resource availability, and the profile of the local Armed Forces Community, among other key factors.

Photo by Anton Gvozdikov/Adobe Stock

Principles and Behaviours that Can Enable Effective Delivery

The case studies also highlighted principles and behaviours that can assist effective Covenant delivery:

• Peer-led learning and delivery (i.e. enrolling frontline staff in the delivery of capacity- and capability-building projects) can enhance the impact of new practices or processes for Covenant delivery in a resource-efficient manner.
• Flagship partners can be appointed by service providers to generate buy-in and establish a secure basis from which Covenant-related assistance can be expanded.
• Involving the Armed Forces Community and the wider public in delivering Covenant activities can help to raise awareness of the Covenant, obtain additional resource and expertise, and support the integration of Armed Forces Community members into local communities.
• Fostering cultures of accountability and improvement guards against complacency, ensures that available services evolve in line with current requirements, and helps to foster new partnerships between stakeholders.
• Positive Covenant communication and emphasising the value of a thriving Armed Forces Community can help service providers to generate public support while countering misconceptions about the Armed Forces Community (e.g. the ‘mad, bad and sad’ stereotype).

Recommendations

Through our case studies and wider OCOC research, we have identified 26 recommendations to enable further progress in Covenant delivery. These include:

• Raising awareness and improving understanding of the Covenant
  • Local authorities should maintain active and inclusive communication with the Armed Forces Community and invest in training to improve awareness of the Covenant among frontline staff
  • Partner organisations should continue to inform public service providers and their beneficiaries about the Covenant as well as the unique characteristics of the Armed Forces Community
• Planning, monitoring and evaluation
  • Local authorities and their partners must ensure that their planning for Covenant delivery is embedded in clearly specified and measurable outcomes
• Collaboration and engagement
  • Local authorities should make a concerted effort to draw together relevant partners, resources and infrastructure in support of Covenant delivery
  • Partner organisations should assist public service providers in identifying gaps in support for the Armed Forces Community
  • Local organisations should engage both the Armed Forces Community and wider public in the development and delivery of services where possible
• Mainstreaming and enabling effective Covenant delivery
  • Local authorities should maximise the use of existing resources, informationsharing structures and data management systems to avoid duplication of effort and ensure consistent Covenant delivery
  • Public service providers should continue to update their processes for identifying members of the Armed Forces Community and ensure this information is recorded in a structured and consistent manner

Note

1. This research only examined the Covenant’s implementation in England, Scotland, and Wales. The context for Covenant delivery in Northern Ireland is highly distinct from the devolved nations of Great Britain and including Northern Ireland within the research’s scope therefore risked masking findings relating to this unique setting.Return to content ⤴

Available for Download

Download PDF

Topics

• Civil-Military Relations
• Military Families
• Military Personnel
• Military Veterans